R v McKeown - [2022] NSWDC 720

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v McKeown [2022] NSWDC 720
Hearing dates: 24 November 2022
Date of orders: 24 November 2022
Decision date: 24 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply prohibited drug greater than or equal to large commercial quantity
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early plea - Form 1 - rolled up drug quantity – multiple supplies - middle man with access to upline supplier - drug user in financial difficulty due to COVID loss of work - demonstrated progress toward rehabilitation - special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217

Category: Sentence
Parties: Brock McKeown (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Z Khan (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Mr L McGonigal (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2021/00276745

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

Brock McKeown today confirmed a plea of guilty that he had entered in the Local Court to one charge of supplying the prohibited drug methylamphetamine in not less than the large commercial quantity: s 25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and for a matter taking into account only objective factors which fall in the middle of the range there is a standard non‑parole period of 15 years imprisonment. That maximum and the standard non‑parole period are important guides to the exercise of the Court’s sentencing discretion. While content has to be given to the standard non‑parole period that does not mean that I start with the maximum or the standard non‑parole period and make proportional deductions from it.
When I sentence McKeown for that offence. he also asks that I take into account a matter on a Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Form 1, the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime. It is appropriate that I do so. He has admitted his guilt in relation to that matter. When he was arrested, he was in possession of $10,000. That sum represents a payment for one of the transactions that brings him before the Court. It is an example of the overall drug supply operation he was running and of the amounts of cash involved. Because the matter on the Form 1 is illustrative of McKeown’s overall criminality and as I will be having regard to a series of transactions involving supply of drugs for cash when I formulate my sentence, it would be wrong if I were to double count those facts by taking into account both when I come to assess the overall criminality of his actions and then again as part of a Form 1. This is a matter where the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v McKeown

Details

AGLC: R v McKeown [2022] NSWDC 720
Case: [2022] NSWDC 720
Decision Date: 24 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McKeown, the appellant was convicted for supplying a prohibited drug in an amount greater than or equal to a large commercial quantity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. McKeown’s conviction stemmed from his role in facilitating multiple drug transactions, which involved him acting as an intermediary between suppliers and customers. His involvement in these transactions placed him in a position of influence and access to a substantial quantity of drugs.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence given McKeown’s early guilty plea, his role as a middle man, the financial difficulties he faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and his demonstrated efforts toward rehabilitation. The court also considered the drug quantity attributed to him, which was rolled up from multiple transactions. McKeown argued for a sentence that reflected his reduced role and the special circumstances impacting his life, including his loss of employment due to the pandemic.

The court recognised McKeown’s early plea and his limited role as a middle man, but emphasised the significant quantity of drugs involved and the multiple transactions he facilitated. The court acknowledged his financial difficulties and efforts toward rehabilitation but found these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of his criminal conduct. The court ultimately determined that a term of imprisonment was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others from engaging in similar criminal activities. McKeown was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 1 month, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 1 month.

The court's decision underscored the need to balance the aggravating factors of the offence with the mitigating circumstances presented by McKeown. The sentence reflects a careful consideration of the principles of justice and deterrence, taking into account both the nature of the crime and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v McKeown [2022] NSWDC 720
Hearing dates:	24 November 2022
Date of orders:	24 November 2022
Decision date:	24 November 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply prohibited drug greater than or equal to large commercial quantity SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early plea - Form 1 - rolled up drug quantity – multiple supplies - middle man with access to upline supplier - drug user in financial difficulty due to COVID loss of work - demonstrated progress toward rehabilitation - special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Jadron v R [2015] NSWCCA 217
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Brock McKeown (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Z Khan (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Mr L McGonigal (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2021/00276745